Sounds like the publishing decision of an editor who thinks comics can be Art but didn't bother to ask if it was any good.
From your review it reads more like a tribute to this guy O'Donnell.
Also, when people can't give you a direct answer to something as simple as what political affiliation you are, and then give some smug response, they automatically lose the debate.
"Also, when people can't give you a direct answer to something as simple as what political affiliation you are, and then give some smug response, they automatically lose the debate."
Hardly. Leaving aside that smugness is in the eye of the beholder, there are plenty of people out there who don't have any commonly recognised political affiliation but who have relatively well thought out belief systems. And who said there was a debate? Discussions are much more productive.
Out of curiosity I clicked on the link to the book on anarchy Paul recommends, then took a stroll through a few other websites - 'cause I really do know next to nothing about Anarchism.
...'Tis all very strange. Unless the difference lies nestled in the motivations rather than the objectives themselves of these various factions, most to all of their positions seem no different (or only a tad more extreme - nobody would really blink an eye at anarcho-capitalism in the Libertarian Party of the USA, for instance) from mainstream counterparts.
Other varieties, such as Collectivist Anarchism, seem laughably contradictory from the get-go.
Paul said:
"People tend to think of anarchism in rather absolute terms, and it's true enough that a purely anarchist society sounds like a fairly unpleasant place."
The only people who think of anarchism in absolute terms are people who aren't anarchists - anarchism is an ideology aimed at bringing about the beginning of a new kind of society, not an ideology with an ultimate end. Thus, there's no such thing as a "purely anarchist society" as any society that came from anarchism would be as unique as the people within it (and there would be myriad types).
Adam said:
"nobody would really blink an eye at anarcho-capitalism in the Libertarian Party of the USA, for instance"
They tend not to as the tiny handful of anarcho-capitalists (or oxy-morons, as I prefer to call them) are more than likely members - at least those based in the US. They are, however, laughed out of any real anarchist group as being right-wing crackpots. I'd also warn against believing what your read on the web - there's hardly any anarchist who'd use the term Collectivist Anarchism these days (anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism - yes), so whatever you're reading is probably not very accurate.
Further on the Libertarian Party, you should look up the name Karl Hess.
"The only people who think of anarchism in absolute terms are people who aren't anarchists"
It seems like the statment "People tend to think of anarchism in absolute terms," isn't really contradicted by that statement, since its a statement of tendency, and the vast majority of people aren't anarchists.
"The only people who think of anarchism in absolute terms are people who aren't anarchists..."
Which would be the overwhelming majority, and my whole point was that it's an inaccurate perception. So I'm not sure what you're complaining about, to be honest.
I wasn't so much complaining as explaining (from an anarchist perspective, if people haven't guessed already). btw, when you say "You don't get many of them in my line of the work", what line of work are you referring to? Most people wouldn't realise how many anarchists there are out there and you tend to get them in every walk of life (ok, maybe not that many in high finance, but still...).
Commenting by HaloScan
